Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)

Citation: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Parent Document: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2002-11-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1890960/rathbun-v-cato-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,550 chars

The portion of the Inducement provision specifically referring to abatement of rent is prefaced by the words, “[djuring the period of such major anchor tenant’s vacancy.” Lessor interprets this to mean that as long as the major anchor tenant’s space is unoccupied by anyone. Lessee, on the other hand, interprets it to mean that the major anchor tenant’s vacancy continues until Lessor finds another tenant operating a “similar type and size business.” We agree with Lessee. The provision does not say “during the period” the space previously occupied by such major anchor tenant is vacant. Rather, it refers to “such major anchor tenant’s vacancy,” which clearly refers to the identity of the tenant. The preceding portions of the Inducement provision refers to identified major anchor tenants, and to acceptable replacements, which are described as businesses “operating a similar type and size business as that of such vacating tenant.” This, taken with our earlier discussion relating to the obvious importance attached by the parties to major anchor tenants attracting high volumes of certain types of customer traffic, makes it unreasonable to interpret this phrase as argued by Lessor. Instead, we conclude that it is more reasonable, and consistent with the expressed intent of the parties, to interpret the phrase to mean that, upon a vacancy by a major anchor tenant, the rent is abated as described in the Inducement provision until a replacement meeting the “similar type and size business” requirement is obtained. Point three is denied.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text